-
7/27/2019 5. Republic vs Maguiat
1/3
G.R. No. 134209 January 24, 2006
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,vs.CELESTINA NAGUIAT,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
Before the Court is this petition for review underRule 45 of the
Rules of Court seeking the reversal ofthe Decision1 dated May 29,
1998 of the Court ofAppeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 37001
whichaffirmed an earlier decision2 of the Regional TrialCourt at
Iba, Zambales, Branch 69 in LandRegistration Case No. N-25-1.
The decision under review recites the factualbackdrop, as
follows:
This is an application for registration of title to four
(4) parcels of land located in Panan, Botolan,Zambales, more
particularly described in theamended application filed by Celestina
Naguiat on29 December 1989 with the Regional Trial Court
ofZambales, Branch 69. Applicant [herein respondent]alleges, inter
alia, that she is the owner of the saidparcels of land having
acquired them by purchasefrom the LID Corporation which likewise
acquiredthe same from Demetria Calderon, Josefina Moragaand Fausto
Monje and their predecessors-in-interestwho have been in possession
thereof for more thanthirty (30) years; and that to the best of
herknowledge, said lots suffer no mortgage orencumbrance of
whatever kind nor is there any
person having any interest, legal or equitable, or inpossession
thereof.
On 29 June 1990, the Republic of the Philippines[herein
petitioner]. . . filed an opposition to theapplication on the
ground that neither the applicantnor her predecessors-in interest
have been in open,continuous, exclusive and notorious possession
andoccupation of the lands in question since 12 June1945 or prior
thereto; that the muniments of titleand tax payment receipts of
applicant do notconstitute competent and sufficient evidence of
abona-fide acquisition of the lands applied for or ofhis open,
continuous, exclusive and notoriouspossession and occupation
thereof in the concept of(an) owner; that the applicants claim of
ownershipin fee simple on the basis of Spanish title or grantcan no
longer be availed of . . .; and that the parcelsof land applied for
are part of the public domainbelonging to the Republic of the
Philippines notsubject to private appropriation.
On 15 October 1990, the lower court issued an orderof general
default as against the whole world, with
the exception of the Office of the Solicitor General,and
proceeded with the hearing of this registrationcase.
After she had presented and formally offered herevidence . . .
applicant rested her case. The SolicitorGeneral, thru the
Provincial Prosecutor, interposedno objection to the admission of
the exhibits.Later . . . the Provincial Prosecutor manifest
(sic)that the Government had no evidence to adduce. 3
In a decision4 dated September 30, 1991, the trialcourt rendered
judgment for herein respondentCelestina Naguiat, adjudicating unto
her the parcelsof land in question and decreeing the
registrationthereof in her name, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Courthereby adjudicates the
parcels of land situated inPanan, Botolan, Zambales, appearing on
Plan AP-03003447 containing an area of 3,131 square
meters,appearing on Plan AP-03-003446 containing an areaof 15,322
containing an area of 15,387 square
meters to herein applicant Celestina T. Naguiat, oflegal age,
Filipino citizen, married to RommelNaguiat and a resident of
Angeles City, Pampangatogether with all the improvements existing
thereonand orders and decrees registration in her name inaccordance
with Act No. 496, Commonwealth ActNo. 14, [should be 141] as
amended, andPresidential Decree No. 1529. This
adjudication,however, is subject to the
variouseasements/reservations provided for underpertinent laws,
presidential decrees and/orpresidential letters of instructions
which should beannotated/ projected on the title to be issued.
Andonce this decision becomes final, let the
corresponding decree of registration be immediatelyissued.
(Words in bracket added)
With its motion for reconsideration having beendenied by the
trial court, petitioner Republic wenton appeal to the CA in CA-G.R.
CV No. 37001.
As stated at the outset hereof, the CA, in the hereinassailed
decision of May 29, 1998, affirmed that ofthe trial court, to
wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decisionappealed from is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, the Republics present recourse on its basicsubmission
that the CAs decision "is not inaccordance with law, jurisprudence
and theevidence, since respondent has not established withthe
required evidence her title in fee simple orimperfect title
inrespect of the subject lots whichwould warrant their registration
under (P.D. 1529
1 | P a g e
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt4
-
7/27/2019 5. Republic vs Maguiat
2/3
or Public Land Act (C.A.) 141." In particular,petitioner
Republic faults the appellate court on itsfinding respecting the
length of respondentsoccupation of the property subject of her
applicationfor registration and for not considering the fact
thatshe has not established that the lands in questionhave been
declassified from forest or timber zone toalienable and disposable
property.
Public forest lands or forest reserves, unless
declassified and released by positive act of theGovernment so
that they may form part of thedisposable agricultural lands of the
public domain,are not capable of private appropriation.5As tothese
assets, the rules on confirmation of imperfecttitle do not apply.6
Given this postulate, the principalissue to be addressed turns on
the question ofwhether or not the areas in question have ceased
tohave the status of forest or other inalienable landsof the public
domain.
Forests, in the context of both the Public LandAct7 and the
Constitution8 classifying lands of the
public domain into "agricultural, forest or timber,mineral lands
and national parks," do notnecessarily refer to a large tract of
wooded land oran expanse covered by dense growth of trees
andunderbrush. As we stated in Heirs of Amunategui9-
A forested area classified as forest land of the publicdomain
does not lose such classification simplybecause loggers or settlers
have stripped it of itsforest cover. Parcels of land classified as
forest landmay actually be covered with grass or planted tocrops by
kaingin cultivators or other farmers."Forest lands" do not have to
be on mountains or inout of the way places. xxx. The classification
is
merely descriptive of its legal nature or status anddoes not
have to be descriptive of what the landactually looks like. xxx
Under Section 2, Article XII of theConstitution,10 which
embodies the Regaliandoctrine, all lands of the public domain
belong tothe State the source of any asserted right toownership of
land.11 All lands not appearing to beclearly of private dominion
presumptively belong tothe State.12 Accordingly, public lands not
shown tohave been reclassified or released as alienableagricultural
land or alienated to a private person bythe State remain part of
the inalienable publicdomain.13 Under Section 6 of the Public Land
Act,the prerogative of classifying or reclassifying landsof the
public domain, i.e., from forest or mineral toagricultural and vice
versa, belongs to the ExecutiveBranch of the government and not
thecourt.14 Needless to stress, the onus to overturn,
byincontrovertible evidence, the presumption that theland subject
of an application for registration isalienable or disposable rests
with the applicant.15
In the present case, the CA assumed that the landsin question
are already alienable and disposable.Wrote the appellate court:
The theory of [petitioner] that the properties inquestion are
lands of the public domain cannot besustained as it is directly
against the abovedoctrine. Said doctrine is a reaffirmation of
theprinciple established in the earlier cases . . . thatopen,
exclusive and undisputed possession of
alienable public land for period prescribed by lawcreates the
legal fiction whereby the land, uponcompletion of the requisite
period, ipso jure andwithout the need of judicial or other
sanction,ceases to be public land and becomes privateproperty .
(Word in bracket and underscoringadded.)
The principal reason for the appellate courtsdisposition,
finding a registerable title forrespondent, is her and her
predecessor-in-interestsopen, continuous and exclusive occupation
of thesubject property for more than 30 years.
Prescinding from its above assumption and finding,the appellate
court went on to conclude,citing Director of Lands vs. Intermediate
AppellateCourt (IAC)16and Herico vs. DAR,17 among othercases, that,
upon the completion of the requisiteperiod of possession, the lands
in question cease tobe public land and become private property.
Director of Lands, Herico and the other cases citedby the CA are
not, however, winning cards for therespondent, for the simple
reason that, in saidcases, the disposable and alienable nature of
theland sought to be registered was established, or, atleast, not
put in issue. And there lies the difference.
Here, respondent never presented the requiredcertification from
the proper government agency orofficial proclamation reclassifying
the land appliedfor as alienable and disposable. Matters of
landclassification or reclassification cannot be assumed.It calls
for proof.18 Aside from tax receipts,respondent submitted in
evidence the survey mapand technical descriptions of the lands,
which,needless to state, provided no informationrespecting the
classification of the property. As theCourt has held, however,
these documents are notsufficient to overcome the presumption that
theland sought to be registered forms part of the
publicdomain.19
It cannot be overemphasized that unwarrantedappropriation of
public lands has been a notoriouspractice resorted to in land
registration cases.20 Forthis reason, the Court has made it a point
to stress,when appropriate, that declassification of forest
andmineral lands, as the case may be, and theirconversion into
alienable and disposable lands needan express and positive act from
the government.21
2 | P a g e
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt18http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt21
-
7/27/2019 5. Republic vs Maguiat
3/3
The foregoing considered, the issue of whether ornot respondent
and her predecessor-in-interesthave been in open, exclusive and
continuouspossession of the parcels of land in question is nowof
little moment. For, unclassified land, as here,cannot be acquired
by adverse occupation orpossession; occupation thereof in the
concept ofowner, however long, cannot ripen into privateownership
and be registered as title.22
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED andthe assailed
decision dated May 29, 1998 of theCourt of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV
No. 37001is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly,respondents
application for original registration oftitle in Land Registration
Case No. N-25-1 of theRegional Trial Court at Iba, Zambales, Branch
69,is DENIED.
No costs.
3 | P a g e
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_134209_2006.html#fnt22
